LIBRA.RY 

OF   THE 

Theological   Seminary, 

PRINCETON,    N.  J. 

BV  811  .B424 
^  Beckwith,  John  H. 
<  Immersion  not  baptism 


A      DONATION 

FKOM 

c:'.ci,<2. 

Beceiued 

/03. 


IMMERSION   NOT  BAPTISM 


__ 

Bt    rev.    JOHN    H.    BECKWITH. 


BOSTON: 
JOHN    P.    JE^ETT    AND    COMPANY, 

CLETELAND,    OHIO  : 

HENRY    p.    B.   JEWETT. 
1858. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1858, 

By  JOHN  P.  JEWIJTT  AND  COMPANY, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  for  the  District  of 
Massachusetts. 


LITHOTYP-ED  BY  COWLES  AND   COMPANY, 

17  WASHINGTON   STREET, 

BOSTON. 


IMMERSION    NOT   BAPTISM. 


To  assert  that  immersion  is  not  baptism 
is  to  take  very  bold  ground,  undoubtedly, 
and  therefore  this  Essay  may  sti'ike  nearly 
all  men  T^dth  surprise,  some  with  astonish- 
ment, and,  perhaps,  some  with  offence. 

It  is  the  distinctive  characteristic  of  one 
Church,  of  large  membership  and  extensive 
influence,  to  maintain  that  there  is  no  other 
baptism  but  immersion,  and  to  treat  all 
who  have  been  baptized  in  any  other  way 
as  unbaptized ;  many  of  them  even  re- 
translating the  Scriptures  so  as  to  cause 
"Baptize,"  always  to  read  "Immerse";  and 
nearly  all  denominations  so  far  agree  with 
them  as  to  admit  members  by  this  mode, 
when  it  is  requested. 

To  assert,  then,  that  immersion  is  not 
baptism,  may  be  offensive  to  some,  though 
it  should  not  be  to  those  who  hold  to  it 

3 


4  IMMERSION  NOT   BAPTISM. 

exclusively  and  who  deny  that  sprinkling 
is  baptism.  It  is  simply  doing  in  this 
sphere  what  they  are  doing  in  another. 
Will  the  reader,  then,  be  candid,  lay 
aside  all  prejudice,  and  attend  to  the 
proof?  And  it  may  be  well  to  premise, 
that  this  will  be  brought  forward  in  what 
the  writer  conceives  to  be  the  shortest 
possible  manner  consistent  with  the  im- 
portance of  the  subject. 

First:  the  inconvenience  and  difficulty  of 
Immersion,  as  well  as  its  indelicacy  in  many 
instances,  make  it  highly  probable  that  the 
Saviour  did  not  make  it  the  rite  of  initia- 
tion into  his  Church. 

1.  Its  inconvenience  and  difficulty.  It  is 
inconvenient  everywhere,  except  when  meet- 
ings are  held  in  the  open  air,  and  by  the  side 
of  some  body  of  water.  In  order  to  its  per- 
formance it  is  necessary  to  leave  the  sanc- 
tuary and  go  to  some  place  where  sufficient 
w^ater  can  be  found  to  immerse  the  candi- 
date. Not  unfrequently  has  it  been  neces- 
-sary  to  go  a  mile  or  t^\^o  for  this  purpose, 
on  the  Sabbath  day.  And  it  is  always  nec- 
essary to  repair  to  a  river,  or  some  body  of 
water,  unless   there  is  a  tank   containing 


IMMERSION  NOT    BAPTISM.  5 

a  quantity  nearer  by,  or  in  the  church.  In 
few  countries  is  it  at  all  seasons  safe  to 
immerse ;  and  in  some  it  is  nearly  impos- 
sible, especially  in  winter.  It  is  dangerous 
in  all  parts  of  the  world  forty  degrees  from 
the  equator,  in  wdnter;  and  in  Lapland  and 
Greenland,  especially  their  northern  por- 
tions, almost  impossible  fi-om  scarcity  of 
water;  and  even  if  it  could  be  obtained, 
its  performance  in  the  open  air  would  prob- 
ably result  fatally.  It  is  difficult  and  in- 
convenient everywhere,  and  in  all  climes ; 
less  so  in  warm  than  in  cold,  but  even  there 
often  quite  inconvenient ;  and  it  was  so  in 
the  days  of  our  Saviour  and  his  disciples. 
For  instance :  immersion  must  have  been 
inconvenient  at  the  baptism  of  the  jailor, 
at  Phillippi,  Acts  16 :  33 ;  also  in  the  in- 
stance mentioned  in  Acts  10  :  47,  48.  In- 
deed, it  would  appear  that  in  the  latter 
case  water  was  brought  into  the  place  of 
worship  to  enable  them  to  perform  the  cer- 
emony. The  apostle  said,  "  Can  anj^man 
forbid  water,"  i.  e.,  "  Can  any  man  forbid 
water  to  be  brought  in,  that  these  should 
not  be  baptized."  Now  it  is  not  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  the  apostle,  moved  by  the 
1* 


6  IMMERSION   NOT   BAPTISM. 

Holy  Ghost,  should  command  a  hogshead 
or  more  of  water  to  be  brought  in  that  the 
rite  might  be  administered.  The  same 
difficulty  existed  in  the  baptism  of  Paul, 
and  in  nearly  all  the  cases  noticed  in  the 
New  Testament,  excepting  those  which 
were  performed  by  or  near  a  river.  The  idea 
of  tanks  being  kept  in  all  these  places  is 
simply  an  ingenious  modern  invention,  to 
obviate  the  argument  drawn  from  this  very 
difficulty.  There  is  no  evidence,  either  in 
Scripture  or  ancient  history,  of  such  recep- 
tacles. Those  spoken  of  at  the  marriage 
at  Cana  in  Galilee  held  only  two  or  three 
firkins  apiece. 

From  its  very  nature  it  is  inconvenient 
to  immerse,  and  in  many  places  and  times 
absolutely  impossible. 

2.  It  is  indelicate;  many  times  indecent. 
Every  one  who  has  noticed  is  sensible  that 
immersions,  by  the  bank  of  a  river  espe- 
cially, often  lead  to  much  light  and  loose 
conversation  among  those  who  look  on.  It 
is  unnecessary  to  enter  into  a  minute  de- 
scription of  scenes  often  transpiring  at 
such  times  and  places,  for  all  know  that 
events   do   frequently  occur  which   excite 


IMMERSION  NOT   BAPTISM.  7 

laughter  and  furnish  matter  of  scandal  for 
some  time  after.  Now  unless  the  quantity 
of  water  is  something,  which  it  is  not, — 
unless  it  does  actually  wash  away  sins,  —  it 
is  fair  to  conclude  that  He  w^ho  is  purity 
itself  never  would  have  instituted  the  form 
of  a  rite  which  was  to  stand  in  all  ages  of 
the  Church,  and  be  practiced  throughout 
the  whole  earth,  and  at  the  same  time  be 
liable  to  produce  such  a  result.  It  would 
be  contrary  to  the  analogy  of  His  nature 
and  providence.  He  never  does  an  unnec- 
essary act,  that  which  does  not  add  to  His 
glory,  or  the  good  of  His  creatures.  He 
never  commands  His  children  to  do  that 
which  will  probably  lead  to  impure  thoughts, 
or  impure  words  in  others,  thereby  making 
them  accessories. 

The  heathen  gods  are  worshipped  by 
rites  that  are  not  only  inconvenient  and  pro- 
fane, but  absolutely  licentious  and  obscene. 
Confusion,  tumult,  drunkenness,  and  de- 
bauchery, are  compatible  with  their  cere- 
monies and  religious  rites,  if  they  do  not 
even  compose  the  rites  themselves.  But  it 
is  not  so  with  the  High  and  Holy  One. 
He  commands  His  children  to  abstain  from 


8  IMMERSION   NOT   BAPTISM. 

all  impurity  themselves,  and  to  be  care- 
ful not  to  do  that  which  will  lead  to  it 
in  others.  He  gave  the  Israelites  directions 
to  construct  their  altars  in  such 'a  manner 
as  to  prevent  those  who  officiated  from  so 
appearing  before  the  audience  as  to  excite 
impure  thoughts.     See  Exodus  20  :  26. 

Hence,  as  immersion  is  confessedly  in- 
convenient and  difficult,  at  some  places 
impossible,  and  as  it  often  excites  laughter, 
and  leads  to  impure  thoughts,  it  is  fair  to 
conclude  that  the  great  Head  of  the  Church 
did  not  command  it. 

Second :  Baptism  V\^as  a  Jewish  institu- 
tion, well  known,  and  in  common  practice 
in  the  days  of  our  Saviour.  The  Phari- 
sees baptized  often.  It  was  customary 
before  eating,  and  after  coming  from  the 
market;  Mark  7:  2,  3,  5:  "And  when 
they  saw  the  disciples  eat  bread  with  de- 
filed, that  is  to  say  with  unbaptized  hands, 
they  found  fault.  For  the  Pharisees  and 
all  the  Jews,  except  they  baptize  their 
hands  oft,  eat  not;  holding  the  tradition 
of  the  elders.  And  when  they  come  from 
the  market,  except  they  baptize  they  eat 
not.    Then  the  Pharisees  and  scribes  asked 


IMITERSION  NOT  BAPTISM.  9 

Him,  why  walk  not  thy  disciples  according 
to  the  tradition  of  the  elders,  but  eat 
bread  with  unbaptized  hands  ? "  Also 
Luke  11 :  38  :  "And  when  the  Pharisee  saw 
it,  he  marvelled  that  he  had*  not  first  bap- 
tized before  dinner."  The  translators  have 
rendered  the  word  "  baptize  "  in  our  Bible 
"  wash  "  and  "  washed,"  but  the  original 
is  as  above.  This,  then,  proves  that  it  was 
in  common  practice  and  well  understood. 
And  this  is  confirmed  by  various  other 
Scripture  proofs.  In  the  epistle  to  the  He- 
brews Paul  gives  a  general  description  of 
Jewish  laws,  manners,  and  customs,  espe- 
cially of  their  ritual  worship ;  and,  in  reca- 
pitulating the  law  in  regard  to  the  worship 
of  the  tabernacle,  he  says,  Heb.  9 :  10 : 
"  Which  stood  in  meats  and  drinks  and 
divers  baptisms,  and  carnal  ordinances  im- 
posed on  them  until  the  time  of  reforma- 
tion ; "  i.  e.,  one  of  the  rites  imposed  on 
them  by  the  great  lawgiver  was  baptism ; 
and  these  were  many,  or  "  divers,"  and 
from  the  passages  already  quoted,  it  is 
shown  that  they  fally  obeyed  the  law,  and 
baptized  often.  They  also  practiced  the 
baptism,  or  as  it  is  rendered,  the  washing 


10  IMMERSION  NOT   BAPTISM. 

(original,  "  baptism  ")  of  pots,  cups,  brazen 
vessels,  and  beds.  —  See  Mark  7  :  4.  There 
is  proof  of  the  same  also  in  John  1.  The 
Jews  sent  a  deputation  to  John  to  learn 
from  his  own  lips  whether  he  were  the 
expected  Christ,  or  Elias,  or  one  of  the 
prophets,  and  when  he  had  informed  them 
that  he  was  neither,  they  asked  him,  v.  25, 
"  Why  baptizest  thou  then,  if  thou  be  not 
that  Christ,  nor  Elias,  neither  that  prophet," 
or,  as  it  reads  in  the  margin,  "  a  prophet." 
This  was  as  much  as  to  say,  that  it  was 
customary  for  the  prophets  to  baptize  ;  and 
when  the  Messiah  should  come,  they  ex- 
pected he  would  baptize ;  but  if  John  was 
neither  Christ  nor  that  prophet,  they  wished 
to  know  by  what  authority  he  administered 
the  rite.  Afterward  there  arose  a  question 
among  the  Jews  about  purifying,  as  re- 
corded in  the  third  chapter  of  John.  A 
deputation  was  sent  to  him  to  settle  a 
question  concerning  the  matter,  who  com- 
menced their  inquiries  by  introducing  "  bap- 
tism" for  "purifying,"  thus  showing  that 
Jewish  purifying  and  baptism  were  the 
same.  The  Jews  practiced  purifying  daily, 
— legal,  religious  purifying, —  and  .the  name 


IMMEESION  NOT  BAPTISM.  11 

by  which  it  was  described  was  baptism,  as 
shown  in  the  passages  quoted  from  the 
seventh  chapter  of  Mark. 

Again ;  if  the  rite  had  not  been  well  un- 
derstood at  that  time,  it  would  have  been 
sufficiently  described  to  enable  those  who 
came  after  to  practice  it  without  mistake, 
and  with  uniformity.  This  is  done  in  the 
instance  of  the  Lord's  supper,  so  clearly 
and  distinctly  that  we  know  just  what  to 
do  in  all  its  stages.  But  baptism,  on  the 
contrary,  is  abruptly  introduced,  with  no 
description  of  its  mode,  clearly  implying 
that  it  was  a  rite  so  weU  understood  that  it 
needed  no  more  description  than  did  the  wor- 
ship of  God  on  the  Sabbath.  It  is  clear, 
then,  that  baptism  was  a  Jewish  institution 
well  understood  by  the  people  to  whom 
the  Saviour  preached,  and  in  common  prac- 
tice. And  from  this  it  clearly  follows  that 
it  must  have  been  commanded  by  the  law, 
—  the  law  as  given  by  Moses,  —  and  it  had 
the  sanction  of  Him  who  instructed  Moses, 
God  himself.  Otherwise  it  must  have  had 
its  origin  in  the  tradition  of  men ;  and  the 
Saviour,  who  so  frequently  reproved  and 
scouted  all  tradition,  as  useless,  and  sinful, 


12  IMMERSION  NOT   BAPTISM. 

must  have  exhibited  a  strange  contradiction 
to  his  own  doctrine  when  he  submitted  to 
its  authority  in  being  baptized  of  John. 
And  furthermore,  Paul,  in  the  passage  al- 
ready quoted,  Heb.  9,  declares  as  some- 
thing which  they  all  well  understood,  that 
it  was  imposed  on  them  "  until  the  time  of 
reformation."  From  all  these  considera- 
tions it  is  proved  that  baptism  was  a  rite 
enjoined  in  the  original  ceremonial  law, 
and  had  the  sanction  of  the  Almighty,  and 
was  placed  in  their  ritual  worship  by  His 
express  command.  This,  then,  is  fatal  to 
immersion,  for  it  is  nowhere  commanded 
in  the  Old  Testament.  Baptism  was  com- 
manded, but  immersion  was  not. 

But  what  is  baptism  ?  It  is  not  simply, 
with  no  form  of  words,  plunging  into  the 
water,  or  throwing  water  upon,  nor  applying 
it,  or  anything  else,  to  one's  self.  No,  not 
even  with  a  form  of  words.  Nor  is  it  an 
application  of  water  as  an  ordinary  act  of 
cleansing,  as  one  would  cleanse  his  gar- 
ments or  his  person  from  filth ;  but  it  is  the 
religiovs^  or  ritual  application  of  water^  by 
one  having  authority  so  to  do,  upon  or  to 
another.     The  multitude  did   not  baptize 


IMMERSION  NOT   BAPTISM.  13 

themselves,  nor  did  the  Saviour  baptize 
himself,  but  they  were  baptized  by  John. 
So  the  disciples  were  commanded  to  go 
into  all  the  world,  and  teach  all  nations, 
and  baptize  them.  And  they  carried  out 
their  instructions  faithfully,  going  every- 
where, teaching  and  baptizing.  Hence,  in 
baptism,  one  person  applies  water  to  an- 
other, or  to  a  thing,  as  a  ritual  or  a  relig- 
ious ceremony.  And  we  are  warranted  in 
saying  that  nowhere  in  the  ceremonial  law, 
nowhere  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  one  man 
commanded  to  immerse  another,  as  a  relig- 
ious ceremony.  There  are  directions  that 
under  certain  circumstances  men  should 
wash  themselves,  and  their  clothes,  and 
some  might  contend  that  in  such  cases 
they  bathed,  or  immersed  themselves ;  but 
in  no  place  is  there  a  command  for  one  to 
immerse,  or  bathe,  or  wash  another  relig- 
iously or  legally.  Hence,  if  baptism  was 
performed  by  immersion  in  the  days  of  our 
Saviour,  it  must  have  originated  in  the  tra- 
ditions of  men,  and  he  must  have  exhibited 
the  strange  anomaly  of  submitting  to  a 
rite  that  had  no  authority  from  the  Old 
Testament,  simply  growing  out  of  the 
2 


14  IMMERSION   NOT  BAPTISM. 

commandments  of  men!  It  is  safe  to  say- 
that  this  he  never  would  do,  and  hence, 
baptism,  by  which  he  "  fulfilled  all  right- 
eousness," was  not  by  immersion,  and 
therefore  immersion  is  not  baptism. 

Third:  The  language  used  by  om-  Sa- 
viour in  its  description  shows  that  the  ele- 
ment is  applied  to  the  candidate,  and  not 
the  candidate  to  the  element.  It  is  baptiz- 
ing "  with  water,"  "  with  the  Holy  Ghost," 
and  "  with  fire."  John  1 :  31 :  "  Therefore 
am  I  come  baptizing  with  water;"  the 
same  is  the  usual  form  of  words  by  which 
it  is  designated.  And  that  the  word 
"  with  "  is  the  true  one  is  shown  by  such 
passages  as  these  :  Matt.  3 :  11 :  "I  indeed 
baptize  you  with  water  unto  repentance, 
but  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  with  fire."  Acts  1 :  5 :  "  John 
truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many 
days  hence."  Now,  if  it  be  shown  that  in 
the  event,  the  element,  or  the  Holy  Ghost, 
descended  upon^  them,  or  was  applied  to 
them,  it  follows  that  we  have  the  true  prep- 
osition, i.  e.  that  it  should  be  "  with."  The 
first  fulfillment  is  found  in  Acts  2 :  3,  4 : 


IMMERSION  NOT  BAPTISM.  15 

"  And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven 
tongues,  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each 
of  them.  And  they  were  all  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak  with  other 
tongues."  It  "  sat  upon  them,"  "  entered 
into  them,"  "  they  were  filled  with  it,"  i.  e. 
it  was  applied  to  them.  The  apostle  Peter 
has,  in  another  place,  given  a  definite  and 
specific  description  of  this  baptism,  show- 
ing the  same.  Acts  11 :  15,  16  :  "  And  as 
I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on 
them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning.  Then  re- 
membered I  the  word  of  the  Lord  how 
that  he  said  John  indeed  baptized  with 
water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost."  That  is,  this  was  the  ful- 
fillment of  the  promise  of  the  Saviour, 
"  Ye  shall  be  baptized  ivith  the  Holy 
Ghost."  They  were  baptized,  but  not  by 
immersion ;  proving,  so  far,  that  immersion 
is  not  baptism.  It  was  applied  to  them, 
and  hence  the  correctness  of  the  word 
"  with  "  is  established.  From  this  it  is  evi- 
dent that  immersion  must  be  excluded.  The 
usage  of  language  is  fatal  to  it.  No  En- 
glish scholar  would  say,  Immerse  ivith  wa- 
ter.     All   must    see,  on   reading   the   last 


16  IMMERSION   NOT   BAPTISM. 

scripture  quoted,  viz.,  Acts  11 :  15,  16,  that 
the  baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost  was  not 
by  immersion.  They  were  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghost.  It  "  fell  on  them."  And 
hence  it  is  proved  by  the  usage  of  language 
that  immersion  is  not  baptism. 

Fourth :  There  wai  the  baptism  of  the 
children  of  Israel  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the 
sea.  1  Cor.  10:  1,  2:  "All  our  fathers 
were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed 
through  the  sea;  and  were  all  baptized 
unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea." 
This  baptism  will  show  us  something  as  to 
the  mode,  and  it  is  certain  that  it  was  not 
by  immersion.  They  passed  through  the 
sea  on  dry  ground.  Head  over  the  history 
recorded  in  the  14th  chapter  of  Exodus, 
and  the  conclusion  is  irresistible  that  the 
baptism  in,  or  by  the  sea,  was  not  by  im- 
mersion. The  Lord  caused  the  sea  to  go 
back  by  a  strong  wind.  It  was  piled  up, 
became  a  wall  on  either  hand,  and  the 
only  form  in  which  the  water  could  have 
reached  them  was  by  the  sprinkling  of  the 
spray.  That,  then,  in  this  case,  is  taken  as 
the  mode.  Thus  they  were  baptized  in 
the  sea.     And  the  cloud  that  had  gone  be- 


IMMERSION   NOT   BAPTISM.  17 

fore  them,  moved,  and  went  backward; 
and  as  it  passed  over  it  rained  upon  them,, 
and  thus  baptized  them.  Describing  this 
scene,  the  Psahnist  says  the  clouds  poured 
out  water.  Psalm  77:  "  Thou  art  the  God 
that  doeth  wonders.  Thou  hast  with  thine 
own  arm  redeemed  thy  people,  the  sons  of 
Jacob  and  Joseph.  The  waters  saw  thee, 
O  God,  the  waters  saw  thee ;  they  were 
afraid ;  the  depths  also  were  troubled. 
The  clouds  poured  out  water."  Here  was 
a  full  description  of  the  whole  scene,  given 
in  poetic  language,  describing  the  fleeing 
of  the  waters  before  the  command  of  God, 
and  also  showing  what  was  the  action  of 
the  clouds ;  informing  us  that  the  baptism 
by  the  cloud,  or  in  the  cloud,  was  by 
sprinkling,  was  by  rain.  The  clouds 
poured  out  water,  which,  in  falling,  sprink- 
led, baptized,  legally  cleansed  the  children 
of  Israel  from  the  defilement  of  Egypt, 
and  set  them  apart,  consecrated  them  unto 
Moses  and  unto  God.  This  is  the  true 
idea  or  intent  of  baptism,  a  cleansing,  pu- 
rification from  defilement,  and  a  formal 
consecration,  setting  apart  for  God.  Then, 
and  there,  and  thus  they  were  set  apart  for 
2* 


18  IMMERSION  NOT  BAPTISM. 

Him.  The  apostle  declares  that  they  were 
baptized ;  and  as  they  were  not  immersed, 
something  else  was  baptism. 

Fifth:  Look  at  the  baptism  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar, Daniel  5 :  21 :  He  was  driven 
from  the  sons  of  men,  and  his  body  was 
wet  with  the  dews  of  heaven,  till  seven 
times  passed  over  him.  The  version  of 
Scripture  in  use  in  the  days  of  our  Saviour 
was  that  known  as  the  Septuagint,  which 
was  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew  and  Chal- 
dee  into  Greek,  by  order  of  Ptolemy  Phil- 
adelphus,  about  three  hundred  years  B.C. 
It  was  from  this  that  his  quotations  were 
made.  Of  course,  therefore,  it  was  authori- 
tative ;  and  its  rendering  of  the  Hebrew 
was  correct,  according  to  the  use  of  the 
language  then  common  among  the  people. 
In  describing  this  wetting,  it  reads  "  his 
body  was  baptized,"  etc.  From  this  fact 
we  can  be  at  no  loss  as  to  the  understand- 
ing of  the  translators  of  the  Hebrew  into 
the  Greek  of  the  Septuagint,  or  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  "  baptize,"  in  the  language 
then  used.  His  body  was  baptized  by  the 
dews  of  heaven,  as  it  ordinarily  descends ; 
and  we  are  to  bear  in  mind  that  in  or  near 


IMMERSION   NOT   BAPTISM.  19 

Babylon  the  dew  is  much  greater  in  quan- 
tity than  with  us.  There  it  more  nearly 
resembles  a  gentle  rain.  Hence,  his  bap- 
tism was  of  the  same  character  as  the  bap- 
tism of  the  children  of  Israel  by  the  cloud. 
His  baptism  was  from  above  him ;  sprink- 
ling, and  not  immersion.  This  account, 
therefore,  gives  additional  force  to  our 
proposition,  showing  that  immersion  is  not 
baptism. 

Sixth :  There  are  the  "  divers  baptisms  " 
spoken  of  by  the  apostle  Paul  in  his  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews.  While  describing  the  an- 
cient worship,  and  the  forms  and  ceremo- 
nies of  the  Jewish  law,  he  said,  Heb.  9  :  10  : 
*'  Which  stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and 
divers  baptisms,  and  carnal  ordinances,  im- 
posed on  them  until  the  time  of  reforma- 
tion." Our  translators  have  rendered  it 
"  divers  washings,"  but  the  original  is 
"baptisms."  And  here,  if  anywhere,  is 
the  error  of  the  translators  in  the  treatment 
of  the  word  "baptize."  Nowhere  in  the 
New  Testament  does  it  more  surely  apply 
to  a  religious  ceremony  than  here.  But 
from  a  careful  examination  it  appears  that 
it  is  invariably  applied  to  a  sacred  rite ;  or, 


20  IMMERSION   NOT   BAPTISM. 

if  there  be  exceptions,  they  do  not  apply  to 
any  of  the  cases  named  in  this  argument. 
It  would  appear,  then,  that  the  word  should 
have  been  uniformly  treated,  especially 
when  it  was  clear  that  it  applied  to  the 
same,  or  a  similar  rite.  If  translated  at 
all,  if  should  have  been  so  in  every  in- 
stance, and  if  transferred  in  one  place,  then 
it  should  have  been  in  every  place.  Then 
ordinary  readers,  at  least,  would  not  have 
been  misled.  Here,  as  in  other  places,  it 
should  have  been  rendered  "  baptisms." 

It  is  shown,  then,  from  the  original  lan- 
guage, that  "  divers '  baptisms  "  were  im- 
posed on  the  children  of  Israel  by  their 
ceremonial  law,  which  w^ere  to  continue  till 
the  times  of  reformation,  or  until  worship 
should  be  reestablished  and  reformed  by 
the  Messiah.  This  passage  was  quoted  to 
show  that  baptism  was  a  Jewish  rite,  and 
in  common  practice  in  the  time  of  Christ, 
and  had  existed  from  Moses  to  Christ. 
But  we  have  before  seen  that  there  is  no  law 
commanding  immersion  as  a  religious  cere- 
mony, no  direction  for  one  man  to  immerse 
another  as  an  act  of  cleansing.  "  Divers 
baptisms"  were  imposed,  and  as  immer- 


IMMERSION  NOT   BAPTISM.  21 

sions  were  not,  it  follows  clearly  that  im- 
mersion is  not  baptism.  If  the  description 
of  the  rite  heretofore  given  be  the  true  one, 
and  it  is  so  treated  by  all  evangelical 
Christians,  this  amounts  to  a  demonstra- 
tion. 

It  is  then  shown,  1st :  that  convenience 
and  propriety  are  against  immersion. 

2.  That  baptism  was  a  rite  in  common 
practice  in  the  days  of  our  Saviour ;  and  as 
he  sanctioned  it  by  his  own  practice,  it  must 
have  been  derived,  not  from  tradition,  but 
from  the  law,  which  nowhere  commands 
immersion. 

3.  The  words  used  in  its  description 
show,  from  the  laws  of  language,  that  the 
element  was  applied  to  the  candidate,  and 
the  same  is  confirmed  in  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  hence  it  could  not  be 
immersion. 

4.  The  baptism  of  the  children  of  Israel 
in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea,  was  not  by 
immersion. 

5.  The  divers  baptisms  imposed  on  them 
by  their  great  lawgiver  were  not  by  immer- 
sion. 

6.  The  baptism  of  Nebuchadnezzar  was 
not  by  immersion. 


22  IMMERSION  NOT  BAPTISM. 

And  hence  it  is  deemed  to  be  proved 
that  immersion  is  not  baptism. 

What,  then,  is  the  true  mode  of  Bap- 
tism ?  Let  the  appeal  be  made  at  once  to 
the  word  of  God,  and  if  the  answer  can  be 
clearly  brought  forth,  let  it  settle  this  ques- 
tion forever.  "  To  the  law,  and  to  the  tes- 
timony." 

All  must  see  that  if  we  can  find  a  mode 
in  the  Bible,  that  must  be  the  end  of  the 
controversy,  unless  there  be  some  change 
on  record. 

The  baptism  by  the  Spirit  we  have  seen 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  at  the  preach- 
ing of  Peter,  when  it  "  fell  on  them." 

The  application  of  water  in  the  baptism 
in  the  cloud,  or  by  the  cloud,  and  by  the 
sea,  we  have  already  shown  was  by  sprink- 
ling ;  and  it  is  fair  to  infer  from  that  fact, 
that  this  is  the  Bible  meaning  of  the  word 
when  applied  to  this  rite.  Because  the 
cloud  poured  out  water,  and  the  people 
were  baptized  by  being  sprinkled,  it  follows 
that  Bible  baptism  is  sprinkling. 

In  the  baptism  of  Nebuchadnezzar  by 
the  dews  of  heaven,  the  water  was  applied 
in  the  same  manner.     Thus  the  proof  ac- 


IMMERSION  NOT   BAPTISM.  23 

cumulates.  In  two  clear  instances  the  wa- 
ter was  applied  by  sprinkling.  If  we  look 
carefully,  we  shall  find  that  this  was  the 
invariable  mode  of  its  application. 

There  was  the  baptism  of  pots,  cups, 
brazen  vessels,  and  tables,  or  beds.  For 
what  purpose  were  they  baptized,  and 
what  was  the  mode?  Also  the  divers  bap- 
tisms spoken  of  by  Paul  in  the  passage 
alluded  to  in  Hebrews.  It  has  already 
been  shown  that  these  were  not  performed 
by  immersion.  How  then  was  the  rite 
administered  ?  The  book  of  Ecclesiasticus, 
written  in  Greek,  cotemporary  with  the 
Septuagint,  furnishes  us  with  a  key  to  un- 
lock the  whole  difficulty.  Although  Ec- 
clesiasticus is  not  canonical,  yet  so  far  as 
its  description  of  a  rite,  form,  or  ceremony 
is  concerned,  it  is  just  as  good  authority  as 
any  part  of  the  Bible ;  for  it  shows  what 
was  the  practice  then,  and  describes  it  in  the 
same  language  used  by  Christ  and  John. 
The  writer  speaks  of  a  rite  that  cleansed, 
or  legally  purified,  a  person  rendered  un- 
clean by  contact  with  a  dead  body,  and 
calls  that  rite  baptism.  Now  if  we  can 
find  a  rite  that  cleansed  a  person  thus  un- 


24  IMMERSION  NOT   BAPTISM. 

clean,  and  ascertain  the  mode  of  its  appli- 
cation, we  know  what  was  baptism,— what 
the  Jews  themselves  called  baptism ;  and 
their  decision  must  be  final.  The  author 
says,  Eccl.  34 :  25 :  "  He  that  is  baptized  af- 
ter the  touching  of  a  dead  body,  if  he  touch 
it  again  what  availeth  his  baptism."  In  the 
translation  it  is  rendered  "washeth,"  and 
"  washing,"  but  the  original  is  "  baptism." 
If  we  can  find  a  Jewish  rite  that  availed 
any  thing  to  cleanse  a  person  thus  made 
legally  unclean,  we  have  the  real  light  we 
need.  The  law  in  regard  to  that  matter  is 
recorded  in  the  19th  chapter  of  Numbers. 
At  the  13th  verse  the  Lord  said  to  Moses  : 
"  Whosoever  toucheth  the  dead  body  of 
any  man  that  is  dead,  and  purifieth  not 
himself,  defileth  the  tabernacle  of  the  Lord ; 
and  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  Israel : 
because  the  water  of  separation  was  not 
sprinkled  upon  him  he  shall  be  unclean ; " 
and  at  the  20th  verse :  "  The  man  that 
shall  be  unclean  (i.  e.  by  contact  with  a 
dead  body)  and  shall  not  purify  himself, 
that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  the 
congregation ;  because  he  hath  defiled  the 
sanctuary  of  the  Lord.     The  water  of  sep- 


IMMERSION   NOT   BAPTISM.  25 

aration  hath  not  been  sprinkled  upon  him ; 
he  is  unclean."  If  we  turn  back  to  the 
10th  verse  we  learn  that  this  shall  be  a 
statute  forever.  Now  what  was  the  rite 
that  purified  the  man  from  his  unclean- 
ness  ?  He  was  commanded  to  bathe  him- 
self and  wash  his  own  clothes :  was  not 
this  the  purification,  and  therefore  the  rite, 
to  which  Ecclesiasticus  refers  ?  This  ques- 
tion must  be  answered  in  the  negative,  for 
these  did  not  produce  the  legal  cleansing. 
The  Lord  himself  says,  v.  13:  "Because  the 
ivater  of  separation  was  not  sprinkled  upon 
him  he  shall  be  unclean.''^  He  might  have 
washed  his  clothes,  he  might  have  bathed 
himself,  and  even  though  he  had  been  im- 
mersed, or  had  water  poured  upon  him,  or 
had  any  other  rite  performed,  no  matter 
what  its  nature  or  mode,  still,  unless  he  had 
been  sprinkled,  —  unless  the  water  of  sepa- 
ration had  been  sprinkled  upon  him,  —  he 
was  unclean,  and  the  command  was  that  he 
should  be  destroyed.  This  is  conclusive. 
It  is  demonstration.  It  must  stand  and  will 
stand  forever.  God  gave  to  Israel,  through 
Moses,  a  rite  which  would  purify  a  man  ren- 
dered unclean  by  contact  with  a  dead  body. 
3 


26  nmERSiON  not  baptism. 

That  rite  was  perpetuated,  handed  down 
through  subsequent  history.  The  writer  of 
Ecclesiasticus,  himself  a  Jew,  and  familiar 
with  all  their  religious  forms  and  rites,  de- 
scribing it  in  the  same  language  in  which 
the  Septuagint  was  written,  and  in  the 
same  language  used  in  the  New  Testament, 
calls  it  baptism^  showing  that  this  was  the 
meaning  of  that  word  when  applied  to  this 
rite.  And  by  reference  to  the  law  itself 
we  find  that  it  was  performed  by  sprinkling 
only.  Here,  then,  in  spite  of  all  argument, 
all  sophistry,  all  appeal  to  the  classics,  all 
loud  talking,  the  rite  known  among  the 
Jews  at  the  time  of  Christ  as  baptism,  was 
performed  by  sprinkling  only.  It  did  not 
originate  with  John  the  Baptist.  It  was 
described  by  Ecclesiasticus  long  before  his 
day,  and  was  instituted  by  Moses  at  the  ex- 
press command  of  God.  Can  the  candid, 
the  unprejudiced  mind  fail  to  be  convinced  ? 
Having  found  the  key,  the  whole  subject 
is  unlocked  and  thrown  open.  Here  we  find 
the  meaning  of  the  .divers  baptisms,  and 
ihe  occasion  of  baptizing  pots,  cups  and 
beds,  as  also  the  mode  of  the  rite.  By  re- 
ferring to  the  same  chapter  (Num.  19)  from 


IMMERSION   NOT   BAPTISM,  27 

which  we  have  learned  what  rite  cleansed 
an  unclean  person,  we  learn  that  their  de- 
filement was  the  same,  and  also  that  their 
cleansing  or  purification  was  performed  in 
the  same  manner;  being  neither  in  its 
design  nor  mode  an  ordinary  washing  or 
cleansing,  but  purely  a  religious  rite.  Ver- 
ses 14  and  15 :  "  This  is  the  law  when  a 
man  dieth  in  a  tent :  all  that  come  into  the 
tent,  and  all  that  is  in  the  tent,  shall  be  un- 
clean seven  days.  And  every  open  vessel 
which  hath  no  covering  bound  upon  it  is 
unclean."  This  was  the  statute  making 
these  things  unclean.  And  the  18th  verse 
gives  the  rule  for  their  cleansing  :  "  A 
clean  person  shall  take  hyssop,  and  dip  it 
in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  it  upon  the  tent, 
and  upon  all  the  vessels,  and  upon  the  per- 
sons that  were  there."  This  passage  shows 
clearly  what  was  the  object  of  the  cleans- 
ing, purification,  or  baptism,  and  it  is  partic- 
ular, also,  in  describing  the  mode  of  cleans- 
ing. And  here,  as  in  the  case  of  the  im- 
pure man,  the  water  was  to  be  applied  by 
sprinkling  only.  This  is  what  was  meant 
by  the  allusion  in  the  New  Testament.  It 
was  not  the  cleansing  of  these  articles  .^"om 


28  IMMERSION   NOT   BAPTISM. 

actual  filth,  with  much  water  and  a  liberal 
mixture  of  soap,  but  a  religious  rite  derived 
from  this  law,  and  made  perpetual  in  one 
of  the  sections  of  the  statute.  And  the 
Jews  were  faithful  to  the  letter  of  the  law. 
They  cleansed,  baptized  every  thing  they 
used  in  their  houses,  and,  as  the  Jaw  made 
him  unclean  who  came  in  contact  with 
even  a  bone  of  the  dead,  they  finally 
adopted  the  practice  of  religiously  sprink- 
ling often.  When  they  came  from  the 
market,  as  they  might  have  come  in  con- 
tact with  one  who  was  defiled,  and  would 
consequently  communicate  his  defilement 
to  them,  they  resorted  regularly  tc  their 
ritual  cleansing.  Mark  7 :  "  And  when 
they  come  from  the  market  except  they 
baptize  they  eat  not."  The  tradition  of 
the  elders  did  not  introduce  the  rite,  but 
simply  applied  it  to  these  and  similar  occa- 
sions. In  this  way  they  legally  made  clean 
the  outside  of  the  cup  and  the  platter. 
And  these  are  the  "  divers  baptisms,"  so  of- 
ten alluded  to,  imposed  on  them,  not  by  the 
priests,  but  by  the  law,  and  only  multiplied 
by  the  elders.  It  has  already  been  shown 
from  John  1,  that  their  purifying  and  bap- 


IMMERSION   NOT    BAPTISM.  29 

tism  were  the  same.  The  terms  were  used 
interchangeably.  Hence  the  mode  of  per- 
forming the  rite  was  well  understood,  and 
needed  no  more  description  than  any  other 
which  was  specifically  laid  down  in  the 
law.  From  these  facts  it  necessarily  fol- 
lows that  the  only  scriptural  mode  of  bap- 
tism is  sprinkling. 

Apply  this  decision  to  the  question  of 
convenience  and  propriety,  and  it  will  be 
found  in  sweet  and  perfect  harmony  with 
both.  Apply  the  words  of  the  Saviour 
which  describe  it  as  w^ater  applied  to  the 
candidate,  and  it  is  the  only  mode  which  is 
wholly  consistent.  The  analogy  between 
this  legal  cleansing  and  the  cleansing  of 
the  soul  and  the  conscience  by  the  sprinkling 
of  the  blood  of  Christ,  is  clear,  and  the 
harmony  is  perfect.  The  one  is  the  type 
or  the  symbol  of  the  other.  By  the  sprink- 
ling of  water,  the  candidate  is  set  apart 
and  cleansed  in  the  sight  of  the  world ;  by 
the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  the 
soul  is  cleansed  and  set  apart  in  the  sight 
of  God. 

And  there  is  nothing  opposed  to  it  even 
in  the  fact  that  John  performed  his  mission 
3* 


30  IMMERSION   NOT   BAPTISM. 

at  Jordan,  or  where  there  were  "  many  wa- 
ters," at  ^non.  Why,  the  multitudes  of 
people  would  demand  much  more  water  to 
drink  than  would  be  necessary  even  to  im- 
merse them.  And  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that 
on  the  most  ancient  medals  struck  to  repre- 
sent the  rite  performed  at  Jordan,  the  candi- 
date is  represented  as  standing  in  the  water 
while  John  sprinkles  him.  All  the  evidence, 
therefore,  in  the  case,  drawn  from  the  word 
of  God,  proves  that  in  baptism  the  water  is 
applied  by  sprinkling,  and  that  only.  And 
with  these  facts  the  conti'oversy  would  seem 
to  be  ended ;  the  proof  is  complete^  is  dem- 
onstrative. 

It  was  noticed  in  the  outset  of  this  argu- 
ment that  the  Baptists  hold  the  precise  op- 
posite of  this  doctrine.  It  w^ill  therefore  be 
necessary  to  look  briefly  at  their  positions. 
What  are  they  ?  They  are  founded  princi- 
pally upon  the  heathen  interpretation  of  the 
word,  and  some  figures  in  the  Scriptures. 
They  rely,  first,  upon  the  meaning  of  the 
word  as  found  in  Greek  literature,  and,  sec- 
ond, on  the  definition  found  in  the  lexicons. 
It  does  not  seem  that  any  attempt  has  been 
made  to  interpret  by  the  Scriptures  them- 


IMMERSION  NOT   BAPTISM.  31 

selves.  There  is  little  strength  in  these  po- 
sitions when  properly  assailed.  As  to  the 
lexicons,  they  give  as  many  as  fifteen  signi- 
fications to  the  words  baj)to  and  baptizo. 
One  of  these  is  immersion,  and  one  of 
them  is  sprinkling,  and  still  there  remain 
thirteen  others  to  be  disposed  of.  Now  it 
would  be  just  as  preposterous  to  hit  upon 
one  of  these  definitions,  and  say  that  in 
this  controversy  it  always  means  that,  as 
to  take  some  other,  and  say  it  always 
means  this, — just  as  unsatisfactory  to  say 
it  always  means  immersion,  as  to  say  it 
always  means  dying,  or  sprinkling.  The 
lexicons,  therefore,  cannot  settle  the  ques- 
tion. Then,  as  to  the  use  of  the  word  in 
heathen  Greek,  the  fact  has  been  strangely 
overlooked  that  in  their  literature  the  word 
is  never  used  in  reference  to  a  religious 
rite,  but  always  to  something  secular,  or 
common.  There  are  thousands  of  words 
in  all  languages  whose  signification  de- 
pends upon  the  connection  in  which  they 
are  found.  Let  any  one  look  at  our  own 
lana^uao^e  and  see  how  diverse  the  meaninsf 
of  the  same  word  often  is  when  applied  to 
different  things,  and  he  cannot  but  be  satis- 


32  IMMEESIOX   NOT    BAPTISM. 

fied  on  this  point.  Therefgre,  if  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  baptizo  is  to  be  determined 
by  the  use  made  of  it  in  the  classic  or 
heathen  Greek,  it  must  be  shown  that  it 
has  a  uniform  meaning  when  applied  to  a 
religious  rite.  But  no  quotation  has  ever 
been  made  wherein  it  is  applied  to  such  a 
subject;  therefore,  whatever  be  its  meaning 
when  referring  to  other  things,  it  weighs 
nothing  in  this  case,  when  it  comes  in  con- 
flict with  its  meaning  as  found  in  the 
Scriptures.  And  it  is  well  to  note  that  its 
heathen  meaning  is  not  uniform  in  any- 
one thing.  It  is  from  that  that  its  fifteen 
different  significations  have  been  derived. 
Much  more  pains  should  have  been  taken 
to  ascertain  its  meaning  in  the  Scriptures 
before  a  resort  was  had  to  any  other  source. 
Our  appeal  has  been  only  to  the  Scrip- 
tures ;  and  having  found  the  meaning  of 
the  word  as  used  there,  the  lexicons  and 
the  classics  could  not  alter  the  conclusions 
arrived  at,  even  if  they  flatly  contradicted 
the  Bible,  which  Ihey  do  not  in  the  slight- 
est particular. 

An  argument  for  immersion  is  also  man- 
ufactured from  history.     It  is  said  that  his- 


IMMERSION   NOT    BAPTISM.  36 

tory  records  that  this  was  the  early  practice 
of  the  churches,  and  the  conclusion  dra\vn  is, 
that  it  was  therefore  the  primitive  mode. 
But  if  all  the  doctrines  and  practices  which 
obtained  in  the  first  three  centuries  of  our 
era  were  therefore  sanctified,  we  should 
have  a  Christianity  consisting  of  all  absurd- 
ities, and  a  rule  which  is  a  bundle  of 
contradictions.  Every  creed  finds  author- 
ity in  this  prolific  fountain.  But,  admit- 
ting that  it  is  authority  on  this  subject,  it 
proves  too  much  for  the  Baptists,  for  it 
clearly  proves  infant  baptism  to  have  been 
so  general  that  early  writers  declared  that 
they  never  knew  of  any  who  denied  bap- 
tism to  infants.  If  it  be  claimed  as  author- 
ity therefore,  those  who  rely  upon  it  should, 
to  be  consistent,  at  once  resort  to  infant 
baptism. 

And,  secondly,  it  is  shown  that  in  the 
early  ages,  or  at  the  same  date  when  im- 
mersion was  practiced,  it  was  also  custom- 
ary to  administer  the  rite  at  midnight,  and 
with  the  candidate,  of  either  sex,  in  a  state 
of  absolute  nudity  1 1  History  therefore  is 
just  as  good  authority  for  this  practice  as 
for  immersion ;  and  those  who  rely  upon  it 


34  IMMERSION   NOT    BAPTISM. 

should,  to  be  consistent,  baptize  the  candi- 
date naked.  But  the  mere  statement  of 
the  fact  shows  at  once  that  this  was  some- 
thing introduced  by  'the  darkness  or  the 
wickedness  of  the  age.  The  Saviour  never 
instituted  such  a  rite. 

But  the  evidence  from  history  may  akso  be 
adduced  in  favor  of  sprinkling,  as  it  shows 
that  that  too  was  practiced.  It  is  probable 
that  some  of  the  teachers  of  that  day  un- 
derstood those  passages  which  command 
"washing"  to  apply  to  the  administrator,  in- 
stead of  the  candidate,  and  that  they  there-  ^ 
fore  conceived  it  to  be  their  duty  not  only 
to  baptize  but  also  to  wash  their  converts ; 
and  therefore  they  first  sprinkled,  or  bap- 
tized, and  then  immersed,  or  washed  them. 
This  is  said  to  be  the  practice  of  the  Greek 
church  at  this  day.  The  facts  of  history, 
therefore,  are  insufficient  to  establish  any 
mode.  And  hence  we  must  fall  back  upon 
the  simple  authority  of  Scripture. 

The  next  application  is  to  the  baptism 
of  John.  It  is  contended  that  he  instituted 
the  rite,  and  that  his  mode  of  administering 
it  was  by  immersion.  The  former  we  have 
fully  shown  is  incorrect,  and  as  to  the  mode, 


IMMERSION   NOT    BAPTISM.  o5 

that  must  have  followed  the  original  law, 
unless  it  was  changed  by  him,  of  which  we 
have  no  account.  His  mode,  therefore,  in- 
stead of  immersion,  must  have  been  sprink- 
ling. But  why  did  he  preach  and  baptize 
in  the  wilderness  ?  Manifestly  because  the 
prophets  had  foretold  that  that  should  be 
the  locality  of  his  labors.  He  was  to  be 
"  the  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilder- 
ness;" his  mission,  to  prepare  the  way  of 
the  Lord,  or  to  prepare  for  his  coming,  as 
Moses  prepared  for  the  descent  of  God  on 
Mount  Sinai.  Thei:e  was  the  pattern  or 
the  type,  and  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  ante- 
type  corresponded;  the  mode  of  purifica- 
tion was  the  same.  Moses  exhorted  the 
people,  or  preached  to  them,  and  then 
sanctified  or  purified  them  by  sprinkling; 
or,  in  other  words,  baptized  them.  And  so 
John  came,  preaching  in  the  wilderness, 
and  God  moved  all  the  people  to  go  out 
to  him ;  and  after  reproving,  and  exhorting 
them,  he,  too,  purified  them  according  to 
the  law  of  IMoses ;  hence  the  mode  must 
have  been  sprinkling.  Indeed  the  very 
prophet  who  foretells  him  as  the  voice  of 
one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  subsequently, 


36  IMMERSION   NOT   BAPTISM. 

and  apparently  in  the  same  discourse,  adds 
the  prediction,  "  so  shall  he  sprinkle  many 
nations." 

Moreover,  in  no  other  way  could  John 
have  baptized  the  vast  multitude  who  came 
out  to  him.  Matt.  3 :  5,6:  "  Then  went 
out  unto  him  Jerusalem,  and  all  Judea, 
and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  and 
were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing 
their  sins."  See  also  Mark  1 :  5.  Com- 
petent historians  have  calculated  that  in 
the  region  there  described,  there  must  have 
been  at  that  time  six  millions  of  people. 
Mark  tells  us  they  were  all  baptized  of  him 
in  Jordan.  Now  it  was  utterly  impossible 
for  John  to  baptize  that  number  by  immer- 
sion, or  by  any  mode  other  than  sprinkling, 
and  that  too  in  the  same  manner  in  which 
Moses  sprinkled  or  baptized  the  people, 
they  standing  up,  and  he  sprinkling  the 
multitude  together.  His  principal  occupa- 
tion was  that  of  preaching,  and  his  whole 
term  of  labor,  in  the  estimation  of  some, 
did  not  exceed  six  months  ;  others  commute 
it  at  a  year.  But  in  either,  or  in  two  years, 
any  schoolboy  can  see  that  it  was  impossi- 
ble for  him  to  immerse  them,  or  even  to 
sprinkle  them  one  by  one. 


IMMERSION  NOT    BAPTISM.  37 

The  baptism  of  Christ  is  also  often  ap- 
pealed to,  and  it  is  well  to  turn  to  that  in 
this  connection. 

For  what  purpose  was  he  baptized? 
Not  surely  for  ordinary  purification,  for  he 
was  in  no  sense  impure ;  it  was  not  the 
baptism  of  repentance,  for  he  had  nothing 
to  repent  of;  not  for  the  seal  of  his  con- 
fession, for  he  made  no  confession ;  —  but, 
plainly,  to  be  legally  set  apart  for  his  office 
as  teacher  or  priest ;  to  conform  to  the  law 
of  Moses  on  entering  upon  his  public  min- 
istry. Thus  he  fulfilled  all  righteousness, 
or  fulfilled  the  law.  As  God  had  given 
special  rules  for  setting  apart  a  priest,  if  he 
had  neglected  them  he  would  have  been  a 
breaker  of  the  Father's  law.  But  he  con- 
formed to  the  law  in  regard  to  this  just  as 
he  subsequently  directed  those  healed  by 
him  to  offer  for  their  cleansing  the  gift 
which  jNIoses  commanded. —  See  Luke  5: 
14.  To  fulfill  all  righteousness,  in  this 
case,  was  to  enter  the  teacher's  office  in 
conformity  with  the  law.  Hence  he  must 
have  been  set  apart  for  his  work  in  the 
same  manner,  and  by  the  same  mode  as 
God  commanded  Moses;  and  by  turning 
4 


38  IMMERSION   NOT   BAPTISM. 

to  the  book  of  the  law  we  at  once  perceive 
how  this  setting  apart  was  performed. 
Numbers  8 :  6,  7 :  "  The  Lord  said  unto 
Moses,  Take  the  Levites  from  among  the 
children  of  Israel,  and  cleanse  them.  And 
thus  shalt  thou  do  unto  them  to  cleanse 
them.  Sprinlde  the  water  of  purifying 
upon  them,  and  let  them  shave  all  their 
flesh,  and  let  them  wash  their  clothes,  and 
make  themselves  clean."  *  The  work  then 
that  Moses  performed  upon  the  Levite  in 
making  him  a  priest^  or  setting  him  apart 
for  his  office,  like  all  the  other  ritual  cleans- 
ings  in  the  ceremonial  law,  was  sprinkling. 
Subsequently  the  history  relates  the  event, 
V.  21 :  "  The  Levites  were  purified,  and 
they  washed  their  clothes."  And  this  rule 
or  law  was  made  perpetual.  Therefore 
the  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  as  Christ 
was  set  apart  for  his  office  agreeably  to  the 
law  of  Moses,  if  he  fulfilled  the  law  he 
was  set  apart,  or  baptized,  by  sprinkling, 
and  in  no  other  way.     Nor  doe^  the  fact 

*  The  question  has  often  arisen,  when  did  the  rite  of 
baptism  as  a  dedicatory  rite  first  occur  ?  It  is  shown  by 
this  passage  that  it  existed  certainly  at  this  time,  for  this 
cleansing  was  not  only  a  purification  but  a  setting  apart 
for  the  service  of  God,  a  dedication. 


IMMERSION   NOT   BAPTISM.  6\) 

that  he  was  baptized  at  or  in  Jordan  in  any 
way  affect  the  argument,  for  in  no  other 
way  could  he  fulfill  the  law.  We  cannot 
follow  Christ  spiritually  in  his  baptism,  for 
he  Vv^as  pure,  while  we  are  sinful ;  but  if  we 
would  conform  to  the  same  mode  in  the  cer- 
emony, we  can  come  to  no  other  conclu- 
sion than  that  we  find  it  set  forth  in  the 
law  of  Moses,  and  that  it  was  sprinkling. 

It  is  very  common  to  quote  Pedobaptist 
writers :  "  It  must  be  so,  for  even  your  own 
teachers  admit  it ;  your  most  learned  men 
admit  that  immersion  is  baptism."  And 
yet  admissions  or  assertions  have  nothing 
to  do  Vv^ith  the  question.  Is  it  proved  ?  If 
not,  the  admissions  of  a  world  would  prove 
nothing.  It  was  once  admitted  that  the 
world  was  one  vast  plain ! 

Considerable  stress  is  laid  upon  the 
words  "  into,"  and  "  out  of,"  "  going  down 
into  the  water,"  and  "  coming  up  out  of 
the  water."  Baptists  quote  the  baptism  of 
the  eunuch,  and  say :  "  Here  we  take  our 
stand.  They  went  down  into  the  water, 
and  of  course  the  eunuch  was  immersed." 
But  pause  a  moment;  what  real  proof  is 
furnished  by  this  history  in  favor  of  any 


40  IMMERSION   NOT   BAPTISM. 

particular  mode  ?  The  fact  that  they  both 
went  down  into  the  water,  —  allowing  that 
to  be  so,  —  no  more  proves  that  the  eunuch 
was  immersed,  than  it  does  that  Philip  went 
under  the  water.  From  the  mere  recital 
nothing  definite  appears  as  to  the  mode, 
and  as  we  have  before  proved  that  sprink- 
ling was  the  only  mode,  it  as  readily  fol- 
lows that  that  was  the  mode  of  its  per- 
formance, as  it  would  have  followed  that 
immersion  was,  had  that  been  proved  to 
be  the  only  mode.  This  passage  does 
not  afford  us  any  light,  unless  it  comes 
from  the  book,  and  that  portion  of  it  which 
the  eunuch  was  reading.  How  should  he 
have  known  any  thing  of  baptism  if  he 
had  not  learned  it  from  the  book  which  he 
was  reading?  The  quotations  which  are 
particularly  alluded  to  in  this  case,  are 
taken  from  the  53d  chapter  of  Isaiah ;  and 
in  the  last  verse  of  the  preceding  chapter, 
only  six  verses  preceding  the  quotation, 
Isaiah  said :  "  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many 
nations,"  or,  as  it  now  appears,  so  shall  he 
baptize  many  nations.  It  is  natural  to 
conclude,  therefore,  that  Philip,  in  explain- 
ing the   Scripture,   explained   to  him  also 


niMERSIOX    NOT    BAPTISM.  41 

the  meaning  of  the  sprinkling,  or  baptism, 
and  that  this  led  to  the  request  with  which 
Philip  so  readily  complied.  The  inference 
certainly  is  this,  and  any  other  would  seem 
unnatural.  As  to  the  meaning  of  the 
(Treek  words,  translated  "into"  and  "out 
of,"  it  is  a  well-established  fact  that  the 
translation  would  have  been  just  as  faith- 
ful to  the  original,  if  they  had  been  ren- 
dered "  to  "  and  "  from."  All  that  is  really 
proved,  therefore,  is  that  they  went  down 
to  the  water  and  came  up  from  the  water. 
If  it  goes  any  farther  than  this,  it  rather 
shows  from  the  whole  subject  that  the 
mode  adopted  w^as  sprinkling. 

Much  stress  is  also  laid  upon  certain  fig- 
ures of  baptism,  such  as  "  buried,"  "  plant- 
ed," and  the  like.  Col.  2 :  12 :  "Buried 
with  him  in  baptism."  Romans  6 :  4,  5  : 
"  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by 
baptism  into  death.  For  if  we  have  been 
planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his 
deatli,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of 
his  resurrection."  These  passages  are  held 
before  the  world  as  conclusive  evidence 
that  immersion  is  the  only  baptism.  The 
claim  is,  that  it  is  like  his  death  in  form ; 


42  IMMERSION    NOT    BAPTISM. 

buried  or  planted  in  the  likeness  of  his 
death.  In  no  sense  is  it  true  that  immer- 
sion is  like  his  death.'  "Vy"as  the  Saviour 
drowned?  If  not,  what  is  there  in  immer- 
sion that  corresponds  with  the  form  of  his 
death?  B^t  the  form  of  the  likeness  is 
entirely  different.  In  the  one  case  there 
was  a  suspension  between  the  heavens  and 
the  earth,  the  nails  rankling  in  his  hands 
and  feet ;  in  the  other  a  plunging  wholly  un- 
der water.  Here  is  literally  no  likeness.  And 
then  as  to  his  burial.  In  one  sense  he  was 
not  buried.  His^  body  w^as  taken  down 
from  the  cross,  and  laid  in  a  new  tomb, 
large  enough  for  a/  n^an  to  sit  or  stand  in. 
It  was  not  buried,  And  no  burial  is  like 
immersion,  unless  it  be  a  burial  in  the  sea. 
With  us  the  earth  is  first  removed,  and 
then  the  coffin  is  lowered  into  the  open 
grave,  and  then  the  earth  is  thrown  on  in 
small  quantities  until  the  grave  is  filled. 
In  this  there  is  a  greater  likeness  to  sprink- 
ling, or  pouring,  than  to  immersion.  But 
the  figure  has  no  reference  to  a  form  ;  its 
reference  is  only  spiritual.  We  are  cruci- 
fied with  him  ;  but  that  does  not  mean  that 
we  are  taken  up  and  nailed  to  a  cross  as  he 


IMMERSION   NOT   BAPTISM.  43 

was.  Rather  the  crucifixion  is  spiritual; 
the  "  old  man  "  is  crucified, —  not  the  body, 
but  the  aftections  and  lusts.  So  in  bap- 
tism. By  repentance  and  the  new  birth 
w^e  have  put  on  a  new  life,  and  the  old  life 
is  dead ;  and  then,  by  baptism,  we  are  con- 
secrated to  Him.  We  are  dead  to  sin,  and 
by  baptism  our  death  is  publicly  set  forth. 
And  to  intensify  the  expression,  we  (our 
old  self)  are  said  to  be  not  only  dead,  but 
"buried."  Just  as  the  Indian  says  when 
the  war  is  over  "  the  hatchet  is  buried,"  so 
by  this  solemn  and  sacred  rite  are  we  de- 
clared to  be  not  only  dead  but  buried. 
And  this  is  all  that  can  be  legitimately 
deduced  from  such  figures. 

One  more  passage,  and  this  review  wall 
close.  Heb.  10  :  22  :  "  Having  our  hearts 
sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our 
bodies  washed  with  pure  water."  "  Bod- 
ies washed  "  ;  does  this  mean  immersion  ? 
Is  it  not  rather  simply  a  rehearsal  of  the 
successive  stages  or  acts  of  purification 
according  to  the  law  ?  First,  the  baptism, 
the  sprinkling  by  the  priest,  indicating  the 
cleansing  of  the  heart,  and  then  the  wash- 
ing of  the  body  which  was  to  be  performed 


44  IMMERSIOX   NOT   BAPTISM. 

by  the  candidate  himself.  Thus  was  he 
sprinkled  in  his  baptism,  and  thus  he  made 
himself  externally  clean  by  washing.  This 
was  the  rule.  This  was  the  order  and  re- 
quirement laid  upon  Paul :  "  Arise,  and  be 
baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins."  The 
baptism  was  performed  by  Ananias,  the 
washing  by  Paul  himself. 

Finally,  the  prediction  of  sealing  his  own 
for  himself,  describes  sprinkling ;  but  never 
any  thing  else.  In  Isaiah,  as  we  have 
seen,  after  suflering  for  sins,  and  redeeming 
the  world,  he  says  :  "  Then  shall  he  sprinkle 
many  nations."  In  the  36th  chapter  of 
Ezekiel,  when  describing  the  final  triumph 
of  the  gospel,  and  the  transforming  power 
of  the  spirit,  he  says  :  "  Then  will  I  sprin- 
kle clean  water  upon  you  and  ye  shall  be 
clean."  Thus  they  should  be  set  apart 
for  him.  But  enough;  all  this  seems  to 
point  but  in  one  direction,  and  that  is  that 
baptism  is  sprinkling.  Even  the  passages 
and  figures  relied  on  by  immersionists,  in- 
stead of  weakening  rather  strengthen  this 
conclusion.  It  is  therefore  proved  by  nu- 
merous passages  and  examples,  embracing 
all  those  where  the  mode  can  be  arrived  at. 


IMMERSION  NOT   BAPTISM.  45 

either  in  the  New  or  Old  Testaments,  that 
immersion  is  not  baptism ;  and  adding  the 
conclusion  last  arrived  at,  namely,  that 
sprinkling  only  is,  it  is  deemed  that  the 
proposition,  immersion  is  not  baptism, 
bold,  startling,  and  offensive,  as  it  may 
be,  is  fully  sustained.  The  question  may 
arise  at  this  point,  Does  not  this  conclu- 
sion exclude  from  communion  all  persons 
baptized  by  any  other  mode  ?  So  reason 
the  strict,  or  Close-communion  Baptists, 
but  without  due  warrant,  even  on  the  sup- 
position that  they  are  correct  as  to  the 
mode.  It  does  not  appear  from  the  Scrip- 
ture that  the  primitive  church  to  whom  the 
first  sacrament  was  administered,  the  disci- 
ples, had  been  baptized  ;  certainly  they  had 
not  been  by  Christian  baptism.  They  did 
not  even  understand  the  nature  of  that  rite, 
nor  was  the  command  to  baptize  in  the  name 
of  Christ  given  until  after  his  resurrection. 
—  Matt.  28.  John's  baptism,  was  "unto 
repentance"  and  his  disciples  were  rebap- 
tized  when  introduced  into  the  Christian 
Church. —  Acts  19:  1-6.  Christian  bap- 
tism in  spirit  is  baptism  into  his  death,  or 
a  public  profession  of  faith  in  his  atone- 


46  IMMERSION   KOT    BAPTISM. 

ment,  as  well  as  a  setting  apart ;  a  consecra- 
tion to  the  Trinity.  This  was  not  under- 
stood prior  to  his  death.  Even  the  disciples 
rejected  the  idea  of  his  death.  Hence  it  is 
not  proved  that  baptism  is  an  absolute 
prerequisite  to  communion.  The  ground 
taken  by  the  General  Baptists  is  more  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  It 
is,  in  substance,  to  reject  a  man  who  de- 
nies the  validity,  or  necessity  of  the  rite, 
but  to  receive  those  to  their  communion 
who  admit  the  necessity,  and  according  to 
their  own  judgment  have  been  baptized. 
They  believe  and  teach  that  immersion 
only  is  baptism ;  but,  without  pretending 
to  be  infallible,  they  do  not  hesitate  to  sit 
at  the  sacramental  table  with  one  who  be- 
lieves in  another  form,  if  the  rite  has  been 
administered  to  him  according  to  his  own 
faith. 

This  view  appears  to  be  in  harmony  with 
the  spirit  of  Christianity,  applied  to  fallible 
human  reasoning  and  diverse  human  judg- 
ment. Let  every  man  judge  himself  in 
this  ordinance,  for  to  his  own  master  he 
must  stand  or  fall.  While,  therefore,  it  is 
the  object  of  this  argument  to  prove  one 


IMMERSION  NOT  BAPTISM.  47 

particular  doctrine,  it  does  not  seek  to  com- 
pel men  beyond  their  convictions ;  and  in 
the  matter  of  the  sacrament  it  leaves  the 
table  perfectly  free  to  all  who  in  their  own 
judgment  have  obtained  a  right  to  it  by 
being  made  the  subjects  of  that  ceremony, 
whatever  its  form,  which  in  their  belief  is 
baptism. 


